Just want to pull you on something, what was your views of JorEl physically dominating several people who were meant to be superior to him in every way shape and form.

Sure, thanks for asking.
My thoughts are as they always are when the superior power falls to the inferior one in any scripted conflict. From die hard, to sports films to rocky movies to mythology and so on... Anything is possible with the right foresight/execution and of course heart is what I walk away with.
My second thought was even simpler, I guess they weren't all that superior to begin with.
Seems like a no brainer.

Quote:

Sure his mental capacity was greater as that was what he was designed for but how did someone who was created to be a thinker dominate someone who was meant to protect an entire planet through method of combat. To me that's just bad story telling and contradicts the point the film brought up about kryptonians and their society. There are so many holes and flaws in the movie that it almost seems like a joke.

How many people has batman beat up that are "superior to him"? And when he does it how often is this attributed to a measure of the mind?
People aren't robots. Sometimes as in MoS, a keen minded warrior get's the jump on his opponents. Whether he simply draws fire first, has his robots blind them with a flare or simply overcomes another fighter versed in his same fighting style.

The day will come when superman will have to face off with Doomsday and if doomsday is anything like the source material, he will be "Superior" to superman on print.
When superman isn't defeated and possibly wins, I will come up with the same explanation: There is more to physical sentient confrontation than power bars. I loved the under sides of upper deck superhero cards as much as the next kid, but...you know.

Quote:

how did someone who was created to be a thinker dominate someone who was meant to protect an entire planet through method of combat.

People need to stop drawing conclusions from what is implied and start drawing them from what is shown.

Let me pull you on something of my own: If the audience enters the cabin of a old retired farmer. The camera racks around the volume and you are made privy to a few of the mans possessions. On the wall you see old boxing gloves and a few prize fighting trophies. This old farmer is then confronted but mafia debt collectors and he overcomes them with formidable head movement, footwork and striking. STORYTELLING being what it is, the boxing trophies communicate to the audience what they need to know to understand this plot development.
Whatever you and your audience what to believe JorEl and his contemporaries are, the minute you are made privy to his armor and training you are shown a higher order of characterization than that of being told "People on Krypton are born to fill roles in society" and "Your father was our foremost scientist". You are being told what the character in question in fact is, it's this revelation that you need to measure against his task.
JorEl isn't simply a pencil pusher and Zod isn't a god of confrontation. Clearly.

My second thought was even simpler, I guess they weren't all that superior... People need to stop drawing conclusions from what is implied and start drawing them from what is shown. ... Zod isn't a god of confrontation.

I definitely agree with this, Zod was simply written as an inept loser in the film. It doesn't make too much sense, but that's what was shown.

While we can argue all day on which degree of murder Batman committed or which era of comics it evokes or the reality of a human vigilante fighting criminals, at the end of the day, said logic does not extend to Superman. It corrupts the character. Superman has the power to destroy the planet, but refuses to do so, let alone take a life. By making Superman a murderer, it takes away the appeal of the character: the control of the destructive power and impulses within him.

Umm...no.

That is not the core appeal of Superman. At all.

On another note, the lack of imagination and basic reasoning ability in this thread...boggles the mind.

Some of you are overthinking things so much that you're missing the forest for the trees.

__________________
Writer and Lyricist of GOTHAM'S KNIGHT: THE BATMAN MUSICAL

And if I'm right
The future's looking bright
A symbol in the skies at night

the lack of imagination and basic reasoning ability in this thread...boggles the mind.

We know. You're oh so very intelligent and imaginative. You've repeated this non-stop. Unlike the other posters in this thread, and unlike professional film critics, and people who have written Superman for decades.

I'm wondering what you do for a living and if you're among the very best at it. Did you go to an elite college and complete an elite program? Or are you just an internet tough guy who is incapable of realising that he might be the one with the mental failings?

We know. You're oh so very intelligent and imaginative. You've repeated this non-stop. Unlike the other posters in this thread, and unlike professional film critics, and people who have written Superman for decades.

You're claiming to be an intellectual giant. Back it up.

I have claimed nothing of the sort.

__________________
Writer and Lyricist of GOTHAM'S KNIGHT: THE BATMAN MUSICAL

And if I'm right
The future's looking bright
A symbol in the skies at night

the lack of imagination and basic reasoning ability in this thread...boggles the mind. ...

I could really care less what Mark Waid thinks about it, because other than the fact that it's ultimately just another opinion, his argument is also full of the same fallacies a lot of fanboys have been spouting (Why couldn’t Superman take Zod elsewhere? Come on, people, use your brains). ...

I can think for myself, and don't need a movie to tell me how to feel about destruction and people being in danger, and what it all means. ...

An intelligent film viewer still realizes that they did happen. ...

I guess if you yourself forget that it happened, and if you need to be told that it mattered for it to matter to you...

You know, I'm going to ignore all the opinions, and the stuff about how the loudest noise in a movie is the climax, and how antagonist VS the protagonist has nothing to do with the plot of a film and so on and just address these little bits...

People seem entirely unable to separate the event within the film from what the some fans know about Superman. ...

To me, it's the fact that people say "This feels tacked on", as if they are unaware that dealing with the villain is kind of an integral portion of storytelling and film, or implying that the sequence itself is shoved into the rest of the movie, when in fact it occupies its own space. I also don't think some here understand story structure as well as they thnk they do, and I don't think people used the phrase "tacked on" right in this instance anyway. ...

What strikes me about this debate is that people are sort of simultaneously overthinking and underthinking things at the same time. They're nitpicking some irrelevancies and missing some subtleties. And I think that's largely because a lot of the analysis is designed to support a conclusion about its quality made based on what people wanted to see, VS taking the film for what it is. ...

I read through the pages of debate on this, and I just kind of giggled. ...

While I have fleshed out my complaints about Goyer, I realize it is fair that I praise him for the parts of the film he did well. On the structural level, I enjoyed the incorporation of elements from Morrison's run on Superman; I enjoyed every scene with the Kents; I enjoyed his interpretation of Kryptonian technology; Zod was a terrific character---he had understandable motivations, but horrible ways of fulfilling them (like Nero from Star Trek 2009); I enjoyed the scenes between Lois and Superman; I enjoyed how Lois was able to hold her own ground against forces stronger than her (that is one of Goyer's strengths: he writes women well. They can hold their own against super villains, without having super powers or tech); and I liked how he established several threads that can be explored in future films (Luthor's presence, Supergirl, among others.)

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Aaron

"I've known since I first took over the series that I wanted to eventually have someone else pick up the hammer," says the writer. "It's kind of a time-honored Thor tradition at this point, isn't it? Going back to the days of Beta Ray Bill."

That's true, if this is the origin of the no-kill rule, then that means they're always going to have to invent BS plot devices to prevent killing. It's extremely silly.

This is aside from the fact that "origin of the no kill rule" is not the reason they killed Zod. They were honest about it, the reason they killed Zod is that Snyder felt the original ending lacked closure. So, they added a scene where the fortress of solitude is destroyed, where Superman heat-rays a lot of Kryptonian embryos to death, and where he murders Zod to make the ending more satisfying. "Origin of the no-kill rule" is merely padding.

You mean where he kills Zod in self-defense, and in the defense of others, right?

__________________They say… "What an unusual person. What a smashing bonnet!"

While I have fleshed out my complaints about Goyer, I realize it is fair that I praise him for the parts of the film he did well. On the structural level, I enjoyed the incorporation of elements from Morrison's run on Superman; I enjoyed every scene with the Kents; I enjoyed his interpretation of Kryptonian technology; Zod was a terrific character---he had understandable motivations, but horrible ways of fulfilling them (like Nero from Star Trek 2009); I enjoyed the scenes between Lois and Superman; I enjoyed how Lois was able to hold her own ground against forces stronger than her (that is one of Goyer's strengths: he writes women well. They can hold their own against super villains, without having super powers or tech); and I liked how he established several threads that can be explored in future films (Luthor's presence, Supergirl, among others.)

Ooooh, you did like some parts of the movie! Yay!

I liked all that stuff too.

To be fair, I do have my own criticism of the film. For me, the weakest part of the film will always be the opening sequence. I love it because it really is very beautiful, and it's emotional in its own way, but it feels like it could have either benefited from being expanded, or conversely, pared down just a bit.

Also, I feel like they could have added in a three or four minute scene about Clark's childhood that would have shown us why the Kent's kept Clark isolated. I can figure it out just fine on my own, but it is something I would have wanted to see.

__________________They say… "What an unusual person. What a smashing bonnet!"

None of which have me claiming that I am "oh so very intelligent", that I am among the very best at something, or that I am an authority figure, or an intellectual giant.

And I certainly haven't repeated those things nonstop, as you also stated.

So yeah...my point stands. I have said nothing of the sort.

The point is, your explanation for why other people disagree with you is consistently that they are dumb.

That's not it. The consensus of legitimate criticisms against the film and the script among professional critics, a lot of forum posters, people who work in the industry, et cetera is not due to people being less intelligent and less wise to you. If you see someone wiser than you, like Mark Waid, state a point of you that is different from your own, you should pause and reflect, really seriously reflect, rather than say "fallacies spouted by a fanboy who should use his brain".

I came out of the theatre liking the movie. I looked up Mark Waid's review. I didn't know who he was. I thought "dumb arguments"... then I looked up who he was, I decided to read the arguments again and pay more careful attention. I understood that his opinion was worth more than mine, and that if there was a disagreement, it was probably my failure to understand and not his failure to explain. He wrote one of the most celebrated Superman novels, surely if I was dismissing his views so casually, the problem was with me and not with him. You, on the other hand, simply assume he's making dumb arguments.

And on that note, you're going on my ignore list. I have no time for somebody so closed-minded and intellectually arrogant.

While I have fleshed out my complaints about Goyer, I realize it is fair that I praise him for the parts of the film he did well. On the structural level, I enjoyed the incorporation of elements from Morrison's run on Superman; I enjoyed every scene with the Kents; I enjoyed his interpretation of Kryptonian technology; Zod was a terrific character---he had understandable motivations, but horrible ways of fulfilling them (like Nero from Star Trek 2009); I enjoyed the scenes between Lois and Superman; I enjoyed how Lois was able to hold her own ground against forces stronger than her (that is one of Goyer's strengths: he writes women well. They can hold their own against super villains, without having super powers or tech); and I liked how he established several threads that can be explored in future films (Luthor's presence, Supergirl, among others.)

That clark also used his powers to show off a crap ton, leading to injuries and other messes... He also put on red kryptonite rings as a conflict resolution..kinda strange.
I see no gain in comparing this film to that show.

I call bull on this, I don't recall that happening "a crap ton" provide examples, I haven't seen Smallville in a while but from my recollection Clark was very careful about people finding out about his secret. The only time he ever acted out was when he was on red k, and he only willingly put on the red k ring once and all the other time he was drugged with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin

T[B]
Your point does beg the question of how many kryptonian invasion fleet caliber opponets Clark faced in a populated area on that show but more to the point, how realistic was that show in execution. The super speed alone is a can of worms.

Doesn't matter about how many Kryptonian invasion fleet caliber opponents he faced, facts are when in a situation where there was others in danger of being caught up in his battle with another dangerous foe he ensured the battle commenced elsewhere. Smallville is a very flawed show with their Superman being very flawed but at least he had the good sense to consider casualties before engaging Super powered foe.

Exactly. Man of Steel's "resolution" has the series trapped in a corner, either Superman becomes a bonafide killer, the writers have to spare characters and thus shows the writers wrote the scene to be "edgy", or worst of all David and Zach come up with a supreme deus ex machina which removes the whole grounded feel of the series, and turns it into a children's film series.

Or he decides he can't bring himself to kill another being to win, and thus has to be creative in his ways to solve the problems he confronts in the future, leading us to the Superman you guys are all clamoring for.

__________________
"No great genius has ever existed without some touch of madness." - Aristotle

Sure, thanks for asking.
My thoughts are as they always are when the superior power falls to the inferior one in any scripted conflict. From die hard, to sports films to rocky movies to mythology and so on... Anything is possible with the right foresight/execution and of course heart is what I walk away with.
My second thought was even simpler, I guess they weren't all that superior to begin with.
Seems like a no brainer.

Your point falls apart as this point was further illustrated by the characters, JorEl believes this so much that he was willing to break a great rule of krypton in the natural birth of KalEl. This is what I mean by contradicting themselves, we are told kryptonians are predisposed to certain roles within their society. Engineered with the purpose of carrying out that role and then bam we have a scientist taking out several people bred for combat single handedly. This wouldn't have been an issue if they were not trying to reinforce the fact that in order to escape this predetermined destiny you had to be born free of the system. Your trying to tell me this yet you have a man at the very start of the film breaking this concept in half before the story even branches out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin

How many people has batman beat up that are "superior to him"? And when he does it how often is this attributed to a measure of the mind?
People aren't robots. Sometimes as in MoS, a keen minded warrior get's the jump on his opponents. Whether he simply draws fire first, has his robots blind them with a flare or simply overcomes another fighter versed in his same fighting style.

Except Batman wasn't bred solely to fulfill one role, also JorEl wasn't a warrior but a scientist. Again this wouldn't be much of a problem if the film didn't reinforce the concept of predetermined roles. Seems Goyer and co where trying to be a bit clever and raise a certain theme in the film but when closely examines falls apart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin

The day will come when superman will have to face off with Doomsday and if doomsday is anything like the source material, he will be "Superior" to superman on print.
When superman isn't defeated and possibly wins, I will come up with the same explanation: There is more to physical sentient confrontation than power bars. I loved the under sides of upper deck superhero cards as much as the next kid, but...you know.

People need to stop drawing conclusions from what is implied and start drawing them from what is shown.

Let me pull you on something of my own: If the audience enters the cabin of a old retired farmer. The camera racks around the volume and you are made privy to a few of the mans possessions. On the wall you see old boxing gloves and a few prize fighting trophies. This old farmer is then confronted but mafia debt collectors and he overcomes them with formidable head movement, footwork and striking. STORYTELLING being what it is, the boxing trophies communicate to the audience what they need to know to understand this plot development.
Whatever you and your audience what to believe JorEl and his contemporaries are, the minute you are made privy to his armor and training you are shown a higher order of characterization than that of being told "People on Krypton are born to fill roles in society" and "Your father was our foremost scientist". You are being told what the character in question in fact is, it's this revelation that you need to measure against his task.
JorEl isn't simply a pencil pusher and Zod isn't a god of confrontation. Clearly.

When what is shown and stated contradict one another what is the audience to do but to question this huge contradiction.

Or he decides he can't bring himself to kill another being to win, and thus has to be creative in his ways to solve the problems he confronts in the future, leading us to the Superman you guys are all clamoring for.

By "creative" you mean plot devices.

Why couldn't he be creative when fighting Zod? Answer: he couldn't, he was in a no-win situation.

What they;ve effectively done is that they can no longer write no-win situations for Superman, there's always going to be some plot device to save the day.

That's not terrible I guess... but it means they lose the ability to kill a villain in the future. For nothing really. Of all the stories they could tell... killing Zod as the origin of the no-kill rule is hardly the most interesting.

Your point falls apart as this point was further illustrated by the characters, JorEl believes this so much that he was willing to break a great rule of krypton in the natural birth of KalEl. This is what I mean by contradicting themselves, we are told kryptonians are predisposed to certain roles within their society. Engineered with the purpose of carrying out that role and then bam we have a scientist taking out several people bred for combat single handedly. This wouldn't have been an issue if they were not trying to reinforce the fact that in order to escape this predetermined destiny you had to be born free of the system. Your trying to tell me this yet you have a man at the very start of the film breaking this concept in half before the story even branches out.

Except Batman wasn't bred solely to fulfill one role, also JorEl wasn't a warrior but a scientist. Again this wouldn't be much of a problem if the film didn't reinforce the concept of predetermined roles. Seems Goyer and co where trying to be a bit clever and raise a certain theme in the film but when closely examines falls apart.

When what is shown and stated contradict one another what is the audience to do but to question this huge contradiction.

Basically:

1) They wanted a "deep" backdrop of a Krypton without choice, so that Kal-El could be a special birth, a special baby, and the movie's theme could be choice, and it could set up Planet Earth as a foil and thus make viewers feel good, because viewers like Earth;
2) They wanted Jor-El to be one of the most ultimate badasses in the history of science fiction films, and they wanted Zod to be a rebel against his society;
3) They never realised or cared that "1" and "2" contradicted each other.

I don't think most viewers consciously notice these details. Nevertheless, it would have been a more powerful film experience if they had painted a much more sterile-looking and sterile-feeling Krypton, rather than just telling us that Krypton was sterile.

Why couldn't he be creative when fighting Zod? Answer: he couldn't, he was in a no-win situation.

What they;ve effectively done is that they can no longer write no-win situations for Superman, there's always going to be some plot device to save the day.

That's not terrible I guess... but it means they lose the ability to kill a villain in the future. For nothing really. Of all the stories they could tell... killing Zod as the origin of the no-kill rule is hardly the most interesting.

But what CAN be interesting is how he heals emotionally. That would probably mean a film with Batman/Bruce not taking up a chunk of screentime.

But that being said, if he kills again (barring something extreme like Darksied/Doomsday), it would make Superman seem like he slaughters his way out of conflicts. Likewise, if he doesn't, it will expose the bloodlust the director/writer had for Superman. It shows how easy it would have been for the franchise for Superman to not have BLOOD on his hands.

1) They wanted a "deep" backdrop of a Krypton without choice, so that Kal-El could be a special birth, a special baby, and the movie's theme could be choice, and it could set up Planet Earth as a foil and thus make viewers feel good, because viewers like Earth;
2) They wanted Jor-El to be one of the most ultimate badasses in the history of science fiction films, and they wanted Zod to be a rebel against his society;
3) They never realised or cared that "1" and "2" contradicted each other.

I don't think most viewers consciously notice these details. Nevertheless, it would have been a more powerful film experience if they had painted a much more sterile-looking and sterile-feeling Krypton, rather than just telling us that Krypton was sterile.

Yeah, it was cool seeing Krypton come alive the way it did, but in respect to the theme that Krypton was a dead world in every sense (planet dying, society dying), maybe its visual vividness could have been toned down, e.g. omit the dragon.

Saying that, this isn't a knock on the film. A preference than any real issue.

Whatever you and your audience what to believe JorEl and his contemporaries are, the minute you are made privy to his armor and training you are shown a higher order of characterization than that of being told "People on Krypton are born to fill roles in society" and "Your father was our foremost scientist". You are being told what the character in question in fact is, it's this revelation that you need to measure against his task. JorEl isn't simply a pencil pusher and Zod isn't a god of confrontation. Clearly.

I agree with the "higher order of characterization" of Jor-El, ass-kicking foremost scientist -- Krypton's renaissance man. The problem lies in making Jor-El out to be not "simply a mere pencil pusher" at the expense of Zod.

If we look at the Kryptonians who fought in the movie, according to feats, Zod ranks lowest.

1. Jor-El beats Zod in a fair fight, proving he "isn't simply a pencil pusher and Zod isn't a god of confrontation".
2. Clark holds off both Faora and Nam-Ek, the former portrayed to be the most skilled Kryptonian, the latter the biggest/strongest.
3. Clark (farm-trained) is pretty much even-steven with Zod (trained his entire life) till killing him.

Two questions arise here. First, how is Clark, a farm boy, so strong? Probably cos he's the son of Jor-El, former badass. Second, why isn't Zod that strong? And if "Zod isn't a god of confrontation", some criticism of how the Metropolis fight panned out stands.

A criticism of the Metropolis fight is that Clark doesn't seem to be concerned about the citizens. The response is that he's too preoccupied with a genocidal mad man and subduing him is the prime responsibility, which is fair enough -- until we go back to the Smallville fight and see Clark fending off two, arguably more powerful, Kryptonians while saving lives and showing concern for the folk of Smallville, at his own disadvantage. In Metropolis, Zod wasn't physically beastly, wasn't crafty (wasn't using humans as meat shields, for example).

While it isn't clear who's the best fighter of the lot (maybe there's really little separating Jor-El, Zod, Faora and Nam-Ek from one another), what's clear is that Zod isn't more powerful than two of Faora and Nam-Ek.

The movie also needed for Zod to be a god of confrontation, because, he's the final boss, the stakes were higher, for the people of earth. For the spectacle of struggle required to force Clark's hand to kill. As for showing Jor-El to be more than just a lab rat? Well, he could have been shown to be beating Nam-Ek, which would be pretty impressive alone seeing the size difference.

Personally, I'd have Jor-El beat Nam-Ek, before Zod comes in and takes Jor-El down in the Krypton act.

That's not it. The consensus of legitimate criticisms against the film and the script among professional critics, a lot of forum posters, people who work in the industry, et cetera is not due to people being less intelligent and less wise to you. If you see someone wiser than you, like Mark Waid, state a point of you that is different from your own, you should pause and reflect, really seriously reflect, rather than say "fallacies spouted by a fanboy who should use his brain".

Who said Mark Waid is so 'wise'? My cousin is a highly published, well-known political commentator, and we only agree on a very thin line of beliefs. Just because someone is published, well-known, or has won an accolades for their work doesn't make them always right.

Doesn't mean that they're necessarily wrong, but I'm not going to allow their opinions to run my life.

In particular, I find Mark Waid and Grant Morrison's comments about Superman to be silly, simply because the comics don't support their statements. If Superman had NEVER EVER killed before, I might be more in line with them, but since he has killed before, I pretty much dismiss what they have to say.

Quote:

I came out of the theatre liking the movie. I looked up Mark Waid's review. I didn't know who he was. I thought "dumb arguments"... then I looked up who he was, I decided to read the arguments again and pay more careful attention. I understood that his opinion was worth more than mine, and that if there was a disagreement, it was probably my failure to understand and not his failure to explain. He wrote one of the most celebrated Superman novels, surely if I was dismissing his views so casually, the problem was with me and not with him. You, on the other hand, simply assume he's making dumb arguments.

Mark's dramatic "review" of MOS is enough for me to believe he's a complete tosser. I don't care if he wrote the Superman series start to finish; he's a complete nut. No way am I basing any opinions on what he thinks.

If you liked MOS, you shouldn't have let some guy you don't even know influence you. Don't ever go to meetings about multi-level marketing. I fear for your money and livelihood.

By the way, out of curiosity, if you read a review by someone who is into theology, and they liked MOS's Jesus references, would that change your opinion too? After all, if someone who studies theology appreciates MOS, they're wiser than you, and you should defer to their opinion, correct?

What about if you come across any positive review, or a mix of positive and negative? How does that shape your opinion on MOS?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DA_Champion

By "creative" you mean plot devices.

Yes and no. Every situation in every film or story is a plot device. If it's done well, it won't feel like one (even though we're aware that's what it is). Superman has killed in the comics before. And he's managed to not kill every enemy afterwards. Is that too plot devicy for you as well?

Quote:

Why couldn't he be creative when fighting Zod? Answer: he couldn't, he was in a no-win situation.

What they;ve effectively done is that they can no longer write no-win situations for Superman, there's always going to be some plot device to save the day.

Superman has killed at least twice in the comics before. They could do another no-win situation. I suspect though, that what will happen in the next 'no-win' situation, is a major sacrifice on his part. Either Superman dies, or he appears to die, or he becomes depowered in some manner.

I'm only guessing, of course, but that's how I would go about it. There are still plenty of stories to be told, or retold in the films. Killing Zod is not an end to that creativity.

Quote:

That's not terrible I guess... but it means they lose the ability to kill a villain in the future. For nothing really. Of all the stories they could tell... killing Zod as the origin of the no-kill rule is hardly the most interesting.

It doesn't bother me. I'd rather have the killing of a bad guy done in the first film, and use the other films to explore any potential emotional fall-out from it, than to establish Superman as a guy who doesn't kill, who, in the last film of the franchise, suddenly has no other option. And then we wouldn't get a satisfactory amount of time to deal with all the implications and problems that could bring.

Now, we've already had a death. Now we get Superman to figure out how he won't kill again. Maybe he vows to never kill again, and then he's pushed to the point where he has not other option again. How would he deal with that? Will he be able to avoid killing again? Should he avoid killing again? Should he have killed Zod sooner? Could he have done things differently? How is he handling the immense power he weilds over pretty much any threat he faces?

These are all interesting questions that can now be explored in the next few films. Or ignored, at the whim of the writers/directors/studio. We'll see what happens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DA_Champion

Basically:

1) They wanted a "deep" backdrop of a Krypton without choice, so that Kal-El could be a special birth, a special baby, and the movie's theme could be choice, and it could set up Planet Earth as a foil and thus make viewers feel good, because viewers like Earth;
2) They wanted Jor-El to be one of the most ultimate badasses in the history of science fiction films, and they wanted Zod to be a rebel against his society;
3) They never realised or cared that "1" and "2" contradicted each other.

You've confused choice with free will. A Kryptonian's occupation is decided at birth. They receive special enhancements so that they may fulfill their particular jobs.

There is nothing in the film that suggests that Krypton took away free will from people. So they can still murder, fight, and learn other skills as they choose. It's just that Zod could never be a farmer, and Jor-El could never be a king, and Lara could never be a warrior. Those aren't their occupations, they aren't allowed to be anything else.

And what's interesting here is that there is a contradiction in what Jor-El has planned for Clark, and in his own beliefs. He wants Clark to be a leader, and a bridge for the Kryptonian people. I don't know that he wants Clark to rule Earth, but I do think he has his ambitions for Clark to be in a position of power.

Jonathan Kent has smaller ambitions; he knows Clark will probably be a leader some day -- although I get the sense he doesn't want Clark to be a leader at all. He wants Clark to remain anonymous, and find a more 'human' way to help people.

What's fun is that Clark ultimately embraces both desires of his fathers, but at the same time, he does it on his own terms. He chooses how he will help, and what life he's going to lead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFlamingCoco

But what CAN be interesting is how he heals emotionally. That would probably mean a film with Batman/Bruce not taking up a chunk of screentime.

But that being said, if he kills again (barring something extreme like Darksied/Doomsday), it would make Superman seem like he slaughters his way out of conflicts. Likewise, if he doesn't, it will expose the bloodlust the director/writer had for Superman. It shows how easy it would have been for the franchise for Superman to not have BLOOD on his hands.

Eh. I think that people are over-stating how it will be impossible for Superman to not kill again. He's killed before and come back from it just fine. I think he'll be all right going forward in this as well. :-)

__________________They say… "What an unusual person. What a smashing bonnet!"

The point is, your explanation for why other people disagree with you is consistently that they are dumb.

Which I also haven't said. You're taking a couple of quotes from me referring to intelligence completely out of context.

I have said nothing about anyone being dumb.

Quote:

That's not it. The consensus of legitimate criticisms against the film and the script among professional critics, a lot of forum posters, people who work in the industry, et cetera is not due to people being less intelligent and less wise to you. If you see someone wiser than you, like Mark Waid, state a point of you that is different from your own, you should pause and reflect, really seriously reflect, rather than say "fallacies spouted by a fanboy who should use his brain".

I don't recall discussing a "consensus" about the film. I address specific points, not a broad consensus.

And you assume that I do not reflect on other people's opinions, when in fact I do. I didn't say "fallacies spouted by a fanboy who should use his brain".

I didn't even imply that. I never said that the ONLY thing in Mark Waid's argument were fallacies. I said "the problem with his argument is" and then pointed out that he has made some of the same illogical arguments that some fanboys have, and have continued to repeat about their issues with this film.

Quote:

You, on the other hand, simply assume he's making dumb arguments.

I never said anything about him making a dumb argument. I never said I didn't agree with him at all, either.

__________________
Writer and Lyricist of GOTHAM'S KNIGHT: THE BATMAN MUSICAL

And if I'm right
The future's looking bright
A symbol in the skies at night

Or he decides he can't bring himself to kill another being to win, and thus has to be creative in his ways to solve the problems he confronts in the future, leading us to the Superman you guys are all clamoring for.

Deus ex machina to solve every film then. Geez, that's creative.

__________________
*\S/T*"But that's the thing about Batman. Batman thinks of everything.""There's always a way. When the odds are impossible- do the impossible."

^ It's funny, when people finally bring up the idea of comic plot devices being used, it gets shot down by certain individuals. I'd rather there see enemies be trapped/depowered/redeemed then just killed. I find THAT more creative, but to each his own.

^ It's funny, when people finally bring up the idea of comic plot devices being used, it gets shot down by certain individuals. I'd rather there see enemies be trapped/depowered/redeemed then just killed. I find THAT more creative, but to each his own.

I don't mind a mix of all those things. I do think in certain cases it makes more sense to have a bad guy die every now and then too, so it doesn't bother me.

Any of the situations can be done poorly, or done well. It just depends on the level of creativity, and how risky the writer wants to be.

Killing characters is risky, and more interesting in some ways. Besides, it's the comic book world. Who says Zod won't be animated by the third film and back to his usual evil self?

__________________They say… "What an unusual person. What a smashing bonnet!"